Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Dacoity Case Based on Eyewitness Testimony: Raja vs. State (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: December 10, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 1307

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Indu Malhotra, J.

Can a conviction for dacoity be upheld based on eyewitness testimony alone, especially if there are allegations that the witnesses saw the accused in police custody before identifying them? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case involving a violent dacoity. The core issue revolved around the reliability of eyewitness accounts and the impact of potential pre-trial exposure of the accused to the witnesses. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra.

Case Background

On the night of May 27, 1999, a group of individuals committed a dacoity at the residence of Mr. Sengoda Goundar in Nallavumpatti village. Mr. Goundar and his wife were sleeping in a tractor shed, while their family members were inside the house. Around 1:00 AM on May 28, 1999, the accused attacked Mr. Goundar and his wife in the tractor shed. The commotion awakened other family members who were also attacked. The assailants looted the house and fled before villagers could gather. Mr. Goundar succumbed to his injuries, while other family members sustained severe injuries.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, convicted Accused Nos. 1 to 6 under Sections 394, 396, and 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were also convicted under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 6 were convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. All were sentenced to life imprisonment. Accused No. 7 was acquitted. The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the appeals filed by the accused, upholding the trial court’s decision. Subsequently, the accused appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 394: *Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery.*
• Section 395: *Punishment for dacoity.*
• Section 396: *Dacoity with murder.*
• Section 449: *House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death.*

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The initial complaint did not identify the assailants.
• Witnesses admitted to seeing the accused in police custody before the TIP.
• Photographs of the accused were published in newspapers before the TIP.
• Accused No. 7, initially suspected, was acquitted, suggesting a flawed investigation.
• Recoveries of stolen items were not supported by a key witness.

State’s Arguments:

• Eyewitness accounts from PWs 1 to 5 were clear and reliable.
• All eyewitnesses sustained injuries, confirming their presence during the incident.
• The nature of injuries indicated sufficient opportunity to observe the assailants.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the eyewitness accounts are reliable, considering the witnesses’ exposure to the accused in police custody and through newspaper publications before the Test Identification Parade (TIP).
2. Whether the High Court was right in upholding the conviction of the accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on several precedents to establish principles regarding the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the importance of identification in court.

• The Court considered cases like Pramod Mandal v. State of Bihar [(2004) 13 SCC 150], Wakil Singh v. State of Bihar [(1981) Suppl. SCC 28], Subhash v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1987) 3 SCC 231] and Soni v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1982) 3 SCC 368] which discussed the impact of delay in holding the Test Identification Parade (TIP), noting that while delay can be a factor, it is not always fatal.
• The Court also referred to Bharat Singh v. State of U.P. [(1973) 3 SCC 896] and Sk. Hasib v. State of Bihar [(1972) 4 SCC 773] to highlight that the defense must question the investigating officer and Magistrate regarding any delay in TIP and that identification parades should be held at the earliest.
• The Court cited Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 569], Brij Mohan v. State of Rajasthan [(1994) 1 SCC 413], Daya Singh v. State of Haryana [(2001) 3 SCC 468], and State of Maharashtra v. Suresh [(2000) 1 SCC 471] to emphasize that if witnesses have an enduring impression of the identity of the accused, delay in TIP may not be fatal.
• The court also relied on Malkhansingh v. State of M.P. [(2003) 5 SCC 746], Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2010) 6 SCC 1], Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P. [(2005) 9 SCC 631], to reiterate that the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in court.
• The court also considered Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab [(1994) 3 SCC 569] and Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia v. Narcotic Control Bureau [(2000) 1 SCC 138] regarding the admissibility of photo identification.
• The court also considered Matru v. State of U.P. [(1971) 2 SCC 75], Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain [(1973) 2 SCC 406], Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Admn [AIR (1958) SC 350], Vaikuntam Chandrappa v. State of A.P. [AIR (1960) SC 1340], Budhsen v. State of U.P. [(1970) 2 SCC 128], Harbajan Singh v. State of J&K [(1975) 4 SCC 480], Jadunath Singh v. State of U.P. [(1970) 3 SCC 518], and Mullagiri Vajram v. State of A.P. [1993 Supp. (2) SCC 198] to emphasize the importance of identification in court and that the absence of a TIP is not always fatal.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court focused on the reliability of the eyewitness testimony, emphasizing that the witnesses were injured in the incident, which gave them ample opportunity to observe the accused. The court also noted that two of the five eyewitnesses denied seeing the accused in police custody, which strengthened the credibility of their testimony. The court reiterated that the substantive evidence is the identification in court and that the TIP is only a corroborative piece of evidence.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Eyewitness testimony, especially from injured witnesses, can be a strong basis for conviction if the court finds it reliable.
• Identification in court is considered substantive evidence.
• Test Identification Parades (TIP) are primarily for investigation and corroboration, not substantive evidence.
• The absence of a TIP or minor irregularities in the TIP process do not necessarily invalidate a conviction, particularly if the court finds the in-court identification credible.
• The court emphasized that the opportunity to observe the accused during the commission of the crime is a critical factor in determining the reliability of eyewitness testimony.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions in this case. The court upheld the conviction and sentence given by the lower courts and dismissed the appeals.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion about any specific amendment in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the identification of the accused in court is substantive evidence and can be relied upon for conviction, especially when the witnesses are injured and have had sufficient opportunity to observe the accused. The court also reiterated that the absence of a TIP or minor irregularities in the TIP process do not necessarily invalidate a conviction. This judgment reinforces the principle that the credibility of eyewitness testimony is determined by the circumstances of each case, and the court’s assessment of the witness’s reliability is of paramount importance.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused, affirming the decisions of the lower courts. The court emphasized the reliability of eyewitness testimony, especially when the witnesses were injured and had ample opportunity to observe the accused. The judgment reinforces the principle that identification in court is substantive evidence and that minor irregularities in the Test Identification Parade (TIP) do not invalidate a conviction if the court finds the in-court identification credible.